In 2000, we (sorta) elected a man with tons of executive experience. He governed over a much larger population than any of the presidential and vice presidential candidates this year. Because of this mans dismal failure, I think people fortunately realized that it's not experience that's important, it's intelligence! I think the experience argument is pretty weak because every single president has absolutely no experience being president when they step into the white house for the first time.
And awful lot of people voted for Barack Obama because he is black, or that was a huge part of their reasoning, and you know it.
An awful lot? It's obvious you're just speculating. I can speculate too: I bet you even more people voted for the other guy because of the color of Obama's skin. Seriously though, with the economy so bad right now, you really think that many people would vote based on such a stupid reason. I find your lack of faith disturbing.
You know what I think (and hope) will change? This election has proven that the status-quo of Republican smear tactics are no longer successful (or at least not AS successful). Facing this disastrous defeat, I hope that the Republicans take a step back and realize that such divisiveness is not good for a country. I think it's great that Kay Hagan got elected despite the despicable attacks made from her opponent. Furthermore, maybe they will return to their roots as a truly conservative party and quit trying to pander so much to the religious zealots and disgustingly rich. It's not about what Barack Obama will do create change, it's about what changes the Republicans will be forced to make in order to seem like a viable party again.
No thanks. I'll give a shit what color he is mainly because it's a pretty damn good gauge of how far America has come along in terms of overcoming some nasty racism. That doesn't mean I will use the color of his skin to judge his abilities as his president, human being, etc. You act like the rhetoric spewing is coming from one side. I bet you I can find the same amount of people who can't really get past the words "socialist" and "Muslim" when talking about Obama's policies.
I'm just pointing out the fact that most people who were involved with the disaster agree that the government could have done a better job at responding to an emergency that happened. Generally, most governments claim responsibility to help their people when natural disasters happen. I live in New Mexico which is generally free of natural disasters. If a rare earthquake causes a water shortage here. Am I suddenly an idiot for living in this state? The fact that you are blaming innocent people who died from a natural disaster, REALLY sickens me when I think people like you vote.
I mean seriously, lets blame all starving Africans for making the absolutely retarded choice for living in Africa. Especially those children WHO DON'T HAVE A CHOICE WHERE TO LIVE. It's their fault for having stupid parents.
Natural disasters happen all over the world, and people might not be as privileged as you to be able to easily pack up their bags and leave their livelihood. "Oh a hurricane is coming, I'll just get a job in Colorado Springs tomorrow and move there."
Insulting my intelligence because I believe it's a governments job to help people in need? You are a pathetic individual, my friend.
An essentially 50-50 congress (remember kids, Lieberman is a Democrat in name only) means that it's controlled by the Democrats? The fact the Bush can veto any bill passed by a slim majority means that the democrats hardly had any control in the last two years. Don't be to upset though, you'll be able to blame the Democrats all you want after today.
Would it be so bad if the government were able to do nothing?
No, it would be totally awesome if the government wasn't able to do anything. I mean, look at Hurricane Katrina. That was so awesome when the government failed to prevent/prepare for/respond to that disaster. I just get warm fuzzies inside every time I think about it.
I've read all the comments of the first page. I did not read a single comment that actually had anything to say about education. Education is probably the #1 most important issue for recovering our economy. Most of the comments were "I'm voting third party" or "Don't complain if you vote/don't vote." or "The system is corrupt!" Great, I've only heard these statements being said every damn political discussion on Slashdot. Seriously, can we stay on topic for just one time and talk about an extremely impoartant issue that our future depends on? Lets be honest with ourselves, one of two candidates will be elected no matter how much we hate the current system. At least do yourselves a favor and compare the differences between the candidate's education plans, and discuss them. Is that too much to ask?
I actually LIKE the electoral college. I think it's a good way to give low-population states a bigger voice. To use the worst-case as an example, Wyoming only has half a million people and so would count as about only 0.2% in a pure popular vote election.
No candidate pays attention to Wyoming anyways since it's a pure red state. Because of how the electoral system works, candidates ignore almost ALL states except for big swing states like Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If we used the popular vote, we would see candidates in a more variety of places because focusing on a certain state no longer becomes a good strategy.
I can't like a system where it makes people feel that their vote is worth less than others.
At the same time, refusing to vote doesn't make the corrupt system magically go away. The sheep won't vote but the wolfs will still vote,win, and eat the sheep. Regardless, the democratic republic in the US is much more complicated then the scenario you provide. Not all of it is corrupt. Saying a vote endorses the corrupt system is kind of misleading. If you are implying that the US is a corrupt system, this corrupt system has survived much longer than many other corrupt systems in our history.
It sounds like you support Bush's economic policies. On another note, are you buy chance an economist? You sure talk you know everything about the economy. I'm just trying to be realistic as someone who isn't the field of economics. Look at the history of the economy under presidents who believed in "trickle down economics." Inflation adjusted GDPs and jobs grew at a slower amount, and the federal debt increased more quickly. I'm honestly not trying to be biased when it comes to the economy. The current economic ideology isn't working. I don't think the solution is do more of that same policy.
I do think the term "trickle down" is an accurate term describing that ideology. Money slowly trickles down from the top, while money flows from the bottom. The wealth gap in the US and around the world is widening at an alarming rate. Exactly how rich do we need our rich and how poor do we need our poor, until everything magically falls together into some sort of wonderful economy?
Hey, you've just discovered a fantastic way to get votes! I'll just promise to tax the crap out of one group of people -- people who work hard, create jobs, and contribute to the economy by spending and investments -- and give it to another group of people who haven't earned it.
I am going to class at the University of New Mexico to get my masters in CS. I have my bachelors in CS from Texas Tech. I have been working in the defense industry for about 7 years now. I have great, well paying job. With my current pay rate, I would see a huge tax reduction in Obama's plan compared to McCain's. So to recap: I am working part time as programmer, and going to graduate school. What else do I need to accomplish to "earn" this tax cut? What has my division manager done (besides knowing the right people) to earn a larger tax cut than me? Why are you so sure that the money my division manager spends will create more jobs than equivalent amount of money being spent from middle-class people like me?
Who the hell modded you informative? Palin hasn't had a US passport until 2006. Obama has little experience but at least he is very educated and has lived outside of a bumblefuck little town for more than a few years. Seriously, I can't even believe you are comparing a person who's jumped between a few community colleges to Obama, who has got his professional law doctorate from Harvard. Who the fuck do you think has more knowledge of the US government!?
What's laughable is Palin's inability to explain the job of a vice president to a third grader, the inability to name a popular magazine, and severe misunderstanding of US geography. If this doesn't scare the hell out of you, you are bat shit crazy.
An Obama presidency with a rubberstamp Congress, or a Democratic Congress with a rubberstamp Obama presidency, either way you want to look at it, will be disastrous.
Statements like these are really starting to annoy me. "If X gets elected then we are all doomed!" Give me a fucking break, unless you are some psychic you really don't know whats going to happen in the future regardless of who gets elected. Historically, this country has had single party rule for so many terms, that we should totally be wiped out by now under your logic.
Also, people calling Obama a socialist (I find it sad that people think this is such a bad thing. Do people not want healthcare, ambulances, fire departments,etc??) are pretty silly. If you actually look at the details of Obama's tax plan, there will be an overall reduction (albeit small) of federal income tax compared to the current tax code. In other words, if we are going to throw the word socialist around, Obama is less socialist than Bush! In reality, he is just slightly changing the tax brackets to make it slightly more progressive. Last time I checked, I don't think any country has fallen due to a slightly progressive change to their tax codes.
Ok, fine. Let's say Obama gets 54% of the popular vote. That still isn't "mandate" category; it means 46% didn't want him in office.
You fail at logic. The 46% who voted for someone else would have done so because they wanted another person in office. It says nothing about whether or not they specifically did not want Obama to be in office. There is no "Vote for Obama"; "Vote against Obama" on any election ballots.
Has there been any evidence shown that either guy running for president has any idea how the economy works? All I've seen is platitudes and empty stateents from both of them.
You realize they have to dumb-down their speeches when they are talking about the economy, right? If they actually gave details about their plans, many Americans would just have blank stares on their faces. Also, more details released to the public would open said plan to more flaws and more attack from the opposition. I know that this strategy probably isn't the healthiest thing for a country, but unfortunately that's how politics work here.
When either candidate becomes president, they'll just appoint advisers who actually have degrees and/or experience in the appropriate field to flesh out the economic plans. I would not be surprise that the tax plans that we see now will have little to no resemblance to the tax plan that is introduced by whoever wins the election.
I believe that the only way to get election campaigns to actually talk about the issues, is to have a smarter, more educated public. If we continue with the failing education system that we have now, we will raise more children who vote based on sound bytes instead of trying research the issues.
Not necessarily. It is more reason to NOT vote for McCain (as if there aren't enough already). Obama is also older than 39. We need to have a candidate who is exactly the minimum age of 35, that way we can vote him out his second term before his brain slows down!
Were you playing speed chess? The article was talking about brain speed. Regardless, I think it's obvious that he was better than you because he has more experience playing chess. I don't think chess is some objective measure of one's brain power. People with abnormally gifted minds might have an advantage at chess, but beating someone at chess doesn't necessarily mean you have a more powerful brain than them.
Take a look at some legislation during the Clinton years. Look what he did! He created... some stuff, that... ruined our economy. Yes! Clinton, and all those other Democrats played their (foundational) part in causing this crisis of debt!
Besides making it easier for minorities to get approved for mortgages (which definately contributed to this crisis, but wasn't the sole cause), what specific bills did the democrats pass during the Clinton years that put us in this mess?
Both sides have caused problems here. Just look at legislation passed by the current Democratic controlled Congress.
What specific bills passed in the last 2 years caused the housing bubble to burst? Where these bills also supported by republicans?
I'm seriously asking these questions because people have been saying this over and over yet they don't provide any specifics. It seemed to me that the greedy nature of people, regardless of politics, is what caused this mess. Maybe I'm wrong.
Hmmm...risk being choked to death or spend several hours sharing half your seat with the naked guy sitting next to you. I choose death by thong thank you very much.
Well, I wouldn't have a problem, if they had said basically just that: "guys, it's a PvP game, we don't want PvE-ers around these here parts." But that's not what they kept saying in interviews and stuff all over the place. Someone at Mythic or EA obviously decided that they want everyone's money, and kept telling us that yeah, verily, PvP is purely optional, you can play to any level without PvP, the PvE game is perfectly fun and viable on its own.
I never got that impression from Mythic. Every time I heard anyone say anything (including devs) about WAR it was about the superior PVP (compared to WoW) and while PVE was there, and decent, it was not really the meat and potatoes of the game. I feel that this is the case after playing the game. There are quests, public quests, instances, and they are pretty well done in my opinion. In all honesty, everything was ripped off from WoW that they liked, stripped the rep grind, and added public quests and influence. However, I only kept up with WAR previews, articles, and the like through Slashdot. Maybe other sources gave you the wrong impression leading up to the game's release.
I understand your frustrations if you wanted to only PVE, especially if that's the game you were expecting. But I also understand GP's point of view. WAR is simply a PVP game with PVE to compliment the down time and to keep things interesting. Not to sound condescending, but if you really want to do PVE only then WoW is definately the better choice.
You sound like a Eve fanboy. It's not like you can't transfer to different realms most of the time. Regardless, you realize that 10 million people play WoW right? I mean CCP barely pulls off an unsharded server with only a couple hundred thousand subscribers. Eve is still unplayable at times. It's not really fair to call WoW's shards "flawed" when the alternatives are just as a flawed if not worse.
That a computer can play the game better than a human is a good sign of a bad game.
You realize you're basically saying that every game ever created is a bad game, right? FPS's, RTS's, RPG's... all these gametypes have AI that are able to beat humans.
That people actually want a computer to play for them is a sign of a really badly designed game.
Any MMO that has a grind in it, or basically ALL MMO's, will have an activity in the game that the player rather have automated for them while they are away at work or something. That doesn't mean that there are aspects in that same game which are enjoyable and fun.
Also, no one ever said that this Glider Bot played WoW better than a human. I honestly doubt that it does. So even your premise is wrong. It's amazing so much wrong can be packed into such a little comment!
Slashdot Mirror
In 2000, we (sorta) elected a man with tons of executive experience. He governed over a much larger population than any of the presidential and vice presidential candidates this year. Because of this mans dismal failure, I think people fortunately realized that it's not experience that's important, it's intelligence! I think the experience argument is pretty weak because every single president has absolutely no experience being president when they step into the white house for the first time.
And awful lot of people voted for Barack Obama because he is black, or that was a huge part of their reasoning, and you know it.
An awful lot? It's obvious you're just speculating. I can speculate too: I bet you even more people voted for the other guy because of the color of Obama's skin. Seriously though, with the economy so bad right now, you really think that many people would vote based on such a stupid reason. I find your lack of faith disturbing.
You know what I think (and hope) will change? This election has proven that the status-quo of Republican smear tactics are no longer successful (or at least not AS successful). Facing this disastrous defeat, I hope that the Republicans take a step back and realize that such divisiveness is not good for a country. I think it's great that Kay Hagan got elected despite the despicable attacks made from her opponent. Furthermore, maybe they will return to their roots as a truly conservative party and quit trying to pander so much to the religious zealots and disgustingly rich. It's not about what Barack Obama will do create change, it's about what changes the Republicans will be forced to make in order to seem like a viable party again.
No thanks. I'll give a shit what color he is mainly because it's a pretty damn good gauge of how far America has come along in terms of overcoming some nasty racism. That doesn't mean I will use the color of his skin to judge his abilities as his president, human being, etc. You act like the rhetoric spewing is coming from one side. I bet you I can find the same amount of people who can't really get past the words "socialist" and "Muslim" when talking about Obama's policies.
I'm just pointing out the fact that most people who were involved with the disaster agree that the government could have done a better job at responding to an emergency that happened. Generally, most governments claim responsibility to help their people when natural disasters happen. I live in New Mexico which is generally free of natural disasters. If a rare earthquake causes a water shortage here. Am I suddenly an idiot for living in this state? The fact that you are blaming innocent people who died from a natural disaster, REALLY sickens me when I think people like you vote.
I mean seriously, lets blame all starving Africans for making the absolutely retarded choice for living in Africa. Especially those children WHO DON'T HAVE A CHOICE WHERE TO LIVE. It's their fault for having stupid parents.
Natural disasters happen all over the world, and people might not be as privileged as you to be able to easily pack up their bags and leave their livelihood. "Oh a hurricane is coming, I'll just get a job in Colorado Springs tomorrow and move there."
Insulting my intelligence because I believe it's a governments job to help people in need? You are a pathetic individual, my friend.
An essentially 50-50 congress (remember kids, Lieberman is a Democrat in name only) means that it's controlled by the Democrats? The fact the Bush can veto any bill passed by a slim majority means that the democrats hardly had any control in the last two years. Don't be to upset though, you'll be able to blame the Democrats all you want after today.
Would it be so bad if the government were able to do nothing?
No, it would be totally awesome if the government wasn't able to do anything. I mean, look at Hurricane Katrina. That was so awesome when the government failed to prevent/prepare for/respond to that disaster. I just get warm fuzzies inside every time I think about it.
I've read all the comments of the first page. I did not read a single comment that actually had anything to say about education. Education is probably the #1 most important issue for recovering our economy. Most of the comments were "I'm voting third party" or "Don't complain if you vote/don't vote." or "The system is corrupt!" Great, I've only heard these statements being said every damn political discussion on Slashdot. Seriously, can we stay on topic for just one time and talk about an extremely impoartant issue that our future depends on? Lets be honest with ourselves, one of two candidates will be elected no matter how much we hate the current system. At least do yourselves a favor and compare the differences between the candidate's education plans, and discuss them. Is that too much to ask?
I actually LIKE the electoral college. I think it's a good way to give low-population states a bigger voice. To use the worst-case as an example, Wyoming only has half a million people and so would count as about only 0.2% in a pure popular vote election.
No candidate pays attention to Wyoming anyways since it's a pure red state. Because of how the electoral system works, candidates ignore almost ALL states except for big swing states like Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If we used the popular vote, we would see candidates in a more variety of places because focusing on a certain state no longer becomes a good strategy.
I can't like a system where it makes people feel that their vote is worth less than others.
Voting just legitimises a corrupt system.
At the same time, refusing to vote doesn't make the corrupt system magically go away. The sheep won't vote but the wolfs will still vote,win, and eat the sheep. Regardless, the democratic republic in the US is much more complicated then the scenario you provide. Not all of it is corrupt. Saying a vote endorses the corrupt system is kind of misleading. If you are implying that the US is a corrupt system, this corrupt system has survived much longer than many other corrupt systems in our history.
It sounds like you support Bush's economic policies. On another note, are you buy chance an economist? You sure talk you know everything about the economy. I'm just trying to be realistic as someone who isn't the field of economics. Look at the history of the economy under presidents who believed in "trickle down economics." Inflation adjusted GDPs and jobs grew at a slower amount, and the federal debt increased more quickly. I'm honestly not trying to be biased when it comes to the economy. The current economic ideology isn't working. I don't think the solution is do more of that same policy.
I do think the term "trickle down" is an accurate term describing that ideology. Money slowly trickles down from the top, while money flows from the bottom. The wealth gap in the US and around the world is widening at an alarming rate. Exactly how rich do we need our rich and how poor do we need our poor, until everything magically falls together into some sort of wonderful economy?
Hey, you've just discovered a fantastic way to get votes! I'll just promise to tax the crap out of one group of people -- people who work hard, create jobs, and contribute to the economy by spending and investments -- and give it to another group of people who haven't earned it.
I am going to class at the University of New Mexico to get my masters in CS. I have my bachelors in CS from Texas Tech. I have been working in the defense industry for about 7 years now. I have great, well paying job. With my current pay rate, I would see a huge tax reduction in Obama's plan compared to McCain's. So to recap: I am working part time as programmer, and going to graduate school. What else do I need to accomplish to "earn" this tax cut? What has my division manager done (besides knowing the right people) to earn a larger tax cut than me? Why are you so sure that the money my division manager spends will create more jobs than equivalent amount of money being spent from middle-class people like me?
Who the hell modded you informative? Palin hasn't had a US passport until 2006. Obama has little experience but at least he is very educated and has lived outside of a bumblefuck little town for more than a few years. Seriously, I can't even believe you are comparing a person who's jumped between a few community colleges to Obama, who has got his professional law doctorate from Harvard. Who the fuck do you think has more knowledge of the US government!?
What's laughable is Palin's inability to explain the job of a vice president to a third grader, the inability to name a popular magazine, and severe misunderstanding of US geography. If this doesn't scare the hell out of you, you are bat shit crazy.
An Obama presidency with a rubberstamp Congress, or a Democratic Congress with a rubberstamp Obama presidency, either way you want to look at it, will be disastrous.
Statements like these are really starting to annoy me. "If X gets elected then we are all doomed!" Give me a fucking break, unless you are some psychic you really don't know whats going to happen in the future regardless of who gets elected. Historically, this country has had single party rule for so many terms, that we should totally be wiped out by now under your logic.
Also, people calling Obama a socialist (I find it sad that people think this is such a bad thing. Do people not want healthcare, ambulances, fire departments,etc??) are pretty silly. If you actually look at the details of Obama's tax plan, there will be an overall reduction (albeit small) of federal income tax compared to the current tax code. In other words, if we are going to throw the word socialist around, Obama is less socialist than Bush! In reality, he is just slightly changing the tax brackets to make it slightly more progressive. Last time I checked, I don't think any country has fallen due to a slightly progressive change to their tax codes.
Ok, fine. Let's say Obama gets 54% of the popular vote. That still isn't "mandate" category; it means 46% didn't want him in office.
You fail at logic. The 46% who voted for someone else would have done so because they wanted another person in office. It says nothing about whether or not they specifically did not want Obama to be in office. There is no "Vote for Obama"; "Vote against Obama" on any election ballots.
Has there been any evidence shown that either guy running for president has any idea how the economy works? All I've seen is platitudes and empty stateents from both of them.
You realize they have to dumb-down their speeches when they are talking about the economy, right? If they actually gave details about their plans, many Americans would just have blank stares on their faces. Also, more details released to the public would open said plan to more flaws and more attack from the opposition. I know that this strategy probably isn't the healthiest thing for a country, but unfortunately that's how politics work here.
When either candidate becomes president, they'll just appoint advisers who actually have degrees and/or experience in the appropriate field to flesh out the economic plans. I would not be surprise that the tax plans that we see now will have little to no resemblance to the tax plan that is introduced by whoever wins the election.
I believe that the only way to get election campaigns to actually talk about the issues, is to have a smarter, more educated public. If we continue with the failing education system that we have now, we will raise more children who vote based on sound bytes instead of trying research the issues.
Not necessarily. It is more reason to NOT vote for McCain (as if there aren't enough already). Obama is also older than 39. We need to have a candidate who is exactly the minimum age of 35, that way we can vote him out his second term before his brain slows down!
Were you playing speed chess? The article was talking about brain speed. Regardless, I think it's obvious that he was better than you because he has more experience playing chess. I don't think chess is some objective measure of one's brain power. People with abnormally gifted minds might have an advantage at chess, but beating someone at chess doesn't necessarily mean you have a more powerful brain than them.
No thanks. He already fucked up one planet.
Take a look at some legislation during the Clinton years. Look what he did! He created... some stuff, that ... ruined our economy. Yes! Clinton, and all those other Democrats played their (foundational) part in causing this crisis of debt!
Besides making it easier for minorities to get approved for mortgages (which definately contributed to this crisis, but wasn't the sole cause), what specific bills did the democrats pass during the Clinton years that put us in this mess?
Both sides have caused problems here. Just look at legislation passed by the current Democratic controlled Congress.
What specific bills passed in the last 2 years caused the housing bubble to burst? Where these bills also supported by republicans?
I'm seriously asking these questions because people have been saying this over and over yet they don't provide any specifics. It seemed to me that the greedy nature of people, regardless of politics, is what caused this mess. Maybe I'm wrong.
I banged your mom last night.
Hmmm...risk being choked to death or spend several hours sharing half your seat with the naked guy sitting next to you. I choose death by thong thank you very much.
Well, I wouldn't have a problem, if they had said basically just that: "guys, it's a PvP game, we don't want PvE-ers around these here parts." But that's not what they kept saying in interviews and stuff all over the place. Someone at Mythic or EA obviously decided that they want everyone's money, and kept telling us that yeah, verily, PvP is purely optional, you can play to any level without PvP, the PvE game is perfectly fun and viable on its own.
I never got that impression from Mythic. Every time I heard anyone say anything (including devs) about WAR it was about the superior PVP (compared to WoW) and while PVE was there, and decent, it was not really the meat and potatoes of the game. I feel that this is the case after playing the game. There are quests, public quests, instances, and they are pretty well done in my opinion. In all honesty, everything was ripped off from WoW that they liked, stripped the rep grind, and added public quests and influence. However, I only kept up with WAR previews, articles, and the like through Slashdot. Maybe other sources gave you the wrong impression leading up to the game's release.
I understand your frustrations if you wanted to only PVE, especially if that's the game you were expecting. But I also understand GP's point of view. WAR is simply a PVP game with PVE to compliment the down time and to keep things interesting. Not to sound condescending, but if you really want to do PVE only then WoW is definately the better choice.
Yeah, well all 16 of my girlfriends are clean too. I ran Norton anti-virus last night!
You sound like a Eve fanboy. It's not like you can't transfer to different realms most of the time. Regardless, you realize that 10 million people play WoW right? I mean CCP barely pulls off an unsharded server with only a couple hundred thousand subscribers. Eve is still unplayable at times. It's not really fair to call WoW's shards "flawed" when the alternatives are just as a flawed if not worse.
That a computer can play the game better than a human is a good sign of a bad game.
You realize you're basically saying that every game ever created is a bad game, right? FPS's, RTS's, RPG's... all these gametypes have AI that are able to beat humans.
That people actually want a computer to play for them is a sign of a really badly designed game.
Any MMO that has a grind in it, or basically ALL MMO's, will have an activity in the game that the player rather have automated for them while they are away at work or something. That doesn't mean that there are aspects in that same game which are enjoyable and fun.
Also, no one ever said that this Glider Bot played WoW better than a human. I honestly doubt that it does. So even your premise is wrong. It's amazing so much wrong can be packed into such a little comment!